STATE OF MAHARASHHTRA Vs. SANJAY D RAJHANS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the verdict of acquittal recorded by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The respondent was convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on the charge of committing the murder of Veena with whom the accused had a marriage engagement. The marriage was scheduled to take place on 2nd December, 1991. The tragic incident occurred in the night of 28th September, 1991 at about 7.30 p.m. The victim Veena died in the hospital on the next day i.e. 29th September at about 8 p.m. on account of the burn injuries she received on the previous day. The accused also had some burn injuries on his hands in the process of extinguishing the flames on the deceased. The conviction was based on certain dying declarations and the circumstantial evidence brought out by the examination of PW4 who was a vendor having a tea-stall near the spot of burning. The High Court, on an elaborate consideration, felt it unsafe to rely on the dying declarations or to accept the evidence of PW4 and, therefore, set aside the conviction. We are informed that the respondent had undergone about five years of sentence during and after the trial.

(2.) We shall advert to the facts alleged by the prosecution and the sequence of events that had happened on the two crucial days i.e. 28th and 29th September, 1991 as emerging from the prosecution evidence.

(3.) The deceased-Veena was a cricket player and the accused was the captain of the cricket team when she was studying in the college. Later, he became a cricket coach. They fell in love with each other and the elders arranged a betrothal function on 18th August, 1991 at which it was decided to celebrate the marriage on 2nd December, 1991. The accused - a graduate, was employed in Census office and the deceased was studying in Law College. The accused and the deceased were closely moving about. Some strained relations developed between them and the accused had some reservations to marry her. On the crucial day of occurrence i.e. 28th September 1991, Veena had gone to see the accused after informing her mother. At about 7.30 p.m. the accused and Veena were on the way to Veenas house and while they were in the locality behind Lokmath building, Aurangabad, the accused slowed down the scooter and by taking out the petrol can kept in the scooter, sprinkled the petrol on the person of Veena and set her on fire, all of a sudden. All this was done on the moving scooter. On noticing the flames on the body of Veena and hearing her cries, some people gathered and tried to put out the fire. PW4 was one amongst them. He overheard Veena remarking "Pramod, why you have burnt me - (Sanjay Pramod is the name of the accused). The accused also had some burn injuries when he tried to extinguish the fire. The accused then took her in an auto-rickshaw to the Government Medical College Hospital. Soon after the admission at 8 p.m., PW8 - the Casualty duty Doctor, enquired from the victim Veena as to how she got burnt. On getting the answer from her, PW8 recorded a medico- legal case and noted what she said in the register-the extract of which is Ext. 39. He also noted that the patient was brought by the accused Sanjay. She told the Doctor that her husband, while going on a scooter on the road near Lokmath building, poured petrol and set her on the fire and the petrol can was in her hand. He noted the percentage of the burns on various parts of the body, the total percentage being 98. At the same time, a Police Constable on duty (PW1) at the police post of the hospital, made an entry in the relevant register of the substance of what he heard from the victim while narrating the history to the Doctor. That is marked as Ext. P13. He then informed the CIDCO police station as the offence took place within the jurisdiction of that police station. PW15, the Head-Constable noted the message, made an entry in station diary and informed PW6, the Sub-Inspector of Police when he came there at 8.40 p.m. PW6 reached the hospital at 10.15 p.m. PW6 then addressed a letter - Ext. 29 to the in-charge Doctor to apprise him whether the patient was in a condition to give the statement. The Doctor stated that she was not in a position to give the statement. Then he returned to the police station and registered the crime under Section 307, IPC. The FIR - Ext. 30 was drawn up on the basis of the same and sent to the concerned Magistrate. While so PWs 2 and 3 - the father and mother of the deceased, having got the news, went to the hospital and by 9.45 p.m. they saw Veena in the ward. Veena allegedly told them that the accused was responsible for setting her on fire. PW13 - another Sub-Inspector attached to CIDCO police station took over investigation from PW6 at about 11 p.m. He went to the Executive Magistrate/Naib Tehsildar - PW7 and requested him to record the statement of the victim Veena. Initially, at about 11.10 p.m. it was not possible to record the statement as the Doctor stated that the patient was conscious but disoriented. However, at 3.15 a.m., the Doctor endorsed on Ext. 35 - letter, that the patient was conscious and oriented and in a condition to give the statement. Then the statement was recorded by PW7 as per Ext. 37 which is relied upon as the 2nd dying declaration. In her statement, the victim stated that the accused quarrelled and poured the petrol taken out from the can and set her on fire after slowing down the scooter on the road behind Lokmat office and some people gathered and extinguished the fire and that she became unconscious thereafter. She also stated that the accused brought her to the hospital. We have another statement, recorded at 4.30 a.m. by the Investigating Officer - PW13, which is sought to be treated as a dying declaration. This statement was recorded without consulting the Medical Officer. The spot was inspected by PW13 on being shown by the father of Veena in the morning of next day. He had seized the articles found at the spot of incident including an identity card and purse. The scooter of the accused was found lying nearby. PW13 recorded the statement of PW4 and others. He arrested the accused at 7.20 p.m. on 29-9-1991. The victim - Veena died at the hospital at 8.10 p.m. The two Doctors who attended on the deceased at the hospital were PWs 10 and 11. After holding the inquest, PW13 sent the dead body for post-mortem. The post-mortem examination was done by PW12. The cause of death was noted as shock and peripheral circulatory failure due to 95% burns. The investigation was entrusted to PW15 on 23rd October, 1991. He re-examined PW4 and also recorded statements of others and then filed the charge-sheet in the Court of C.J.M., Aurangabad on 1-7-1992.